[cdi-dev] CDI + transactions query

[Paul Parkinson]

Thanks for this btw Jens.  You saved me the trouble.  I'll be sending out an email sometime next week to the jta list for feedback on this and other issues.

Paul

On Aug 30, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Jens Schumann wrote:

> Marina, Paul:
> 
> I think most of what we need is already covered by
> http://java.net/jira/browse/JTA_SPEC-5. I created
> http://java.net/jira/browse/JTA_SPEC-6 to cover the
> beforeCompletion/afterCompletion ambiguities.
> 
> Thanks so far. We should move further discussions to the JTA spec list.
> 
> Jens 
> 
> Am 28.08.12 01:39 schrieb "Marina Vatkina" unter
> <marina.vatkina at oracle.com>:
> 
>> Jens,
>> 
>> Jens Schumann wrote:
>>> Am 25.08.12 00:11 schrieb "Marina Vatkina" unter
>>> <marina.vatkina at oracle.com>:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> You can mark a transaction for rollback inside the beforeCompletion
>>>> callback.
>>>> 
>>>> BeforCompletion callback is part of the transaction commit process, so
>>>> it's too late to request a commit. Nested transactions are not required
>>>> to be supported, but you should be able to suspend/resume an active
>>>> transaction to run a RequiresNew logic.
>>>> 
>>>> AfterCompletion callback is called after all transaction processing has
>>>> been finished.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks for clarification. Just found similar statements in the EJB spec
>>> (Didn't expect it there though).
>>> 
>>> Would you agree with my comment in
>>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-213
>>> that CDI should rely on what's already specified for the platform,
>>> especially for container and bean managed transactions and JTA
>>> synchronization callbacks?
>> 
>> It should. But for a BMT transactions, an observer can start a
>> transaction, if none is in progress. It should then in most cases
>> complete the transaction (stateful session beans allow transaction
>> completion at a later time).
>>> If so we have to discuss wether CMT/BMT
>>> semantics should be part of the EJB spec and wether the current JTA or
>>> Java EE spec has to include clarifications like yours above.
>>> 
>>> I have to admit that I do not follow the current JTA spec works nor do I
>>> understand the (political) requirements/consequences if the content of
>>> chapter 13 EJB 3.1 spec gets moved to a better location.
>> Unfortunately the EJB spec can't just move its transaction support to
>> another spec (or platform spec for that matter) - it relies on javax.ejb
>> package, which can't be split into pieces, and we can't just drop the
>> "old" EJB way for backward compatibility.
>>> I would hope this
>>> will already happen while introducing @Transactional/TransactionScope.
>>> 
>> 
>> It will be added to the JTA spec (Paul sent the pointers).
>> 
>> -marina
>>> Jens
>>> 
>>> 
>